willis report". thank you for joining us. have a great holiday weekend. ♪n. that will do it. we will see you tomorrow. ♪ john: what do you know about gasoline? zero oil compaes? >> wait too much. john: i am told at the mall wil lp. >> a new heros rising. saving our future. john: it does increase smiling. >> you can add miles. john: a lot of myths. that is our show tonight. ♪ >> and now john stossel. [applause]
john: planning s car trip? warmer weather means driving season. we all have opinions about the price of gas, what might be don about it, but it turns out some much of what we think that we know is not so. and one reason we get it wrong is that companiesand interest groups like to ask. politicians, well, like maybe too harsh a word. they mislead. they pretend that was a few law they can make everything better. president obama's says gas cost too much and he feels our pain. >> the serious blow to your budget. gettinghit with a new tax coming right out of your pocket. john: the president took action. >> we have taken steps to softe the blow by making sure that ou cars use less gas. we put in place the toughest to economy standards in history. over the life of a new car the average family will save more than $8,000 at the pump. john: it sounds good. he does not want to save $8,000.
but the magic of fuel economy standards is just one more myth that politicians sell us. here to tell us the truth, susa dudley who runs the regulatory studies center in george washington university and james taylor who studies ergy for the heartland institute. so what is the problem? president obama just said he explained that he saved the $8,000. >> the problem is, we have hybrid cards and love them. we drive them, commute, take them on vacations. wheels of a pickup truck that w use around the firm. now, for are hybrids we value fuel economy. we like gas mileage. from a truck we value different things. the problem with the government rule is that they are ignoring all those other president -- precedents.
the only thing of value is fuel economy. >> 78% favor requiring beeter fuel efficiency, but the car dealers say that this will make cars cost $3,000 more. >> and the government's own estimate is that the most recen rules the you just mentioned, $60 billion to achieve those. john: these are popular. >> and consumers right now if they want can purchase these automobiles right now. i am wondering why we're doing is of oil and sticking your nos and other people business. in order to make cars more fuel efficient of the manufacturers are making them smaller, using lightematerials and are less crash worthy. your seeing thousands of people dying on the roa right now that should not be and would no be if we did not have these requirements to our regulations restrictns. john: more people die, but we get more mileage. next read, people is in the aut industry its regulation. fits it intensely, but i
noticed something weird when th fuel standard bill was announced . then heads of 13 car makers wer their shaking the president's hand and smiling. everybody looked so happy. what is that about? >> people team tt tiara people tend to think that industry doe not want regulation but in this tree often suppts regulation because it gives them competitive advantage. in this case there are a few of the automaker's there were in support of the rule. also, i think the industry, the facehe threat oo different regulation in 50 different states, so this might have been a lesser of two evils. en if it is a $60 billion cost , if everyone had to do it, they could pass it on to consumers. john: just like with other industries, when you're heavily regulated, if you are a large company already making a profit you can assure those costt. at the same time you know the smaller companies, those who have get ideas and innovate cannot afford these costs.
>> gives the big as a advantage. it is a way that they absorb th cost d say it is a necessary evil because we can keep that market share ourselves. we don't get these innovative products, innovative companies that are be done byregulations. john: a few weeks ago i reporte on another example of tough regulations. checout this cooler amphibious vehicle. oh, no. i am driving in the water. wait a second. i press a button and the wheels ll up. now i have a real boat. and the company makes even more useful amphibious vehicles. it's terrific rescue vehicle. places where thereeare lots of lakes and rivers. this suv-sized one. the company says american regulation makes it very
difficult to get these things approved in america. one reason is that bi automakers are so uncomfortable with the current regulations that they join the government. it has no air bag. but you cannot put air bags and above because every time it's a way of the thing would go off. >> frequent pace planting,but as adults unless the manufacturers of these innovative vehicles are affirmatively hiding something from us, why shouldn't we be able to make the interest jack. >> and of passing beyond the. john: does not take e on the oi companies. i am told they opposed in energ and, the competition. they don wanto follow the green lead. i assume that is true. laurel is not green, wodyou say this is a myth. >> absolutely. exxon mobile invested
$600 million an ounce to research for biofuels. they see an opportunity to make money, especially if the government is going to man thei subsidized. they're not opposed to that. john: they are, in effect, the biggest investor of green stuff. >> people don't know that, but the auto companies see an opportunity to have more subsidies, more port thrown their weight. why not get on board. john: next, electric cars. great forhe environment. i want this totally free thanks to a government subsidy. en a subsidy is now gone. the electric must be better for the trip because congress still subsidizes the electric vehicl. this is a myth? >> electric is not better because we have to get electricity from somewhere, so if the jtification i we are reducing emissions, wel, now we just a power plant emissions, bus the batteries.
if you put them in automobiles as well, they're also a very significant and our mental problem in terms of recycling and what have you. thank you for that segment. i watch it. i got one of those golf carts myself. may be used -- maybe a little bit of a hypocrite the government justified by saying we are reducing emissions. it is not like to be drivin all over the neighborhood. it is just a toy. john: next, democrats regulate and republicans deregulate. you were a republican regulator. >> i was the overseer of the regulators. john: regulatory affairs. >> that's right. and the evidence just does not support that. if you ok at the number of regulations that were issued by a george h. w. bush, clinton, and george w. bush, on over their term they issued this sam number. president obama has been
regulating more. his record is about 20 percent more than any of his three previous. plus, the notion that president bush was of the regulator, i would say that is a myth. he issued some of the most far reaching regulations on air quality, food labeling, and -- john: he hired 95,000 new regulator said. did you fight him on this? did you resist? >> the pressure to regulate is intense. and as we've noted before, even in this tree is pressuring. so when everybody wants, regulation can give you some competitive advantage everyone pushes for it. there is no one pushing for stepping back to give people mo freedom of choice. john: we are on this program. when we talk about gas and oil and what they cost, think about this. over here, this barrel of oil. so let me ask the audience.
of the oil in this barrel, how much of it becomes gasoline? all of this? most of it? don't answer because you're too smart. you are my audience. i ask people in times square. how much of that becomes gasoline? >> all of it. >> i would say aut maybe 60-70 % is probably converted into gasoline. john: chief economist. he should know. so what percent of a barrrrel becomes gasoline >> it varies by refinery and crude type. john: can you guess what is?
>> the computer. john: the volleyball. >> styrofoam cups. john: aspirin. and not talking about the bottle , but aspirin itself. how about class? okay. you got a right. this is the only thing not made with the oil. and whydo you say this is impoant for people to know? >> it is important because if you're looking around your hous virtually everything that you have ttere is either made from oil or shipped by oil. john: it does not need to be. we could be shippg things of power. >> well, you could. you could. john: if we stop using oil we would not be able to have all o these things. >> there is no question. we have been around for 150
♪ john: whenever gas prices go up they appear to make your car burn less gas. they are all garbage. autokers would install it because it would give them a sales advance. hover, there is a way to save on gas without driving less tha does work. it is called hyper myelin. special correspondent kennedy does it. >> let's go. come on. john she lives in los angeles and drives a lot and has mastered for techniques. the first i you have heard of before. lighten up on the gas pedal. >> which means when you're at a stoplight and you are about to go, do not just jam on the gas. yoo're wasting fuel. start slow and just get going
cruising. my drive the people behind you crazy, but who cares. he is that happy because i'm no going as fast as you'd like. john: the next technique is mor controversial, said shifting into neutral and coasting. >> i shifted into neutral. you cannot go in neutral when you're going downhill in california, but it is okay because they're going uphill. you ought to coasted to a stoplight. and i can stay neutral. john: it is against the law to coast the downhill in many states but idoes save gas. >> effective and fun. of a sudden you get even addicted to putting your car in a true whenever you can. john: fling tires to the recommended level also makes a difference. the robber manufacturers association says 50 percent of americans do this.
another controversial technique is drastic, closely following another car, better yet a truck little vacuum. there is danger we are told not to tailgate. the hyper mileage techniques to work acc is it on the this will be derek carr. >> i can see the range of my ca for run of gas. you can see it go up and you ca add miles on to the range in just a few short miles i have already added 10 miles to my range. >> you are saving a couple of bucks but risking your life tailgating these people. >> i risk my life every weekend. i will get to the particulars, but lesso say at we're not missing any of that. driving itself as the most dangerous thing the we do. i know until a semis.
full i let them break the wind to give you a little bit more fuel efficiency. john: california said he should allow for feed for miles-per-hour. the 65 miles-per-hour, supposed to be too moderate and 60 feet, 17 car lengths back. no one does that. 3 feet, 13 car lengths. >> in new hampshire is-2 car lengths. john: that was a joke. >> that's not true. john: this does save you some money. testing is illegal down el. >> you kind of slingshot. you accelerate, get going, and put it into neutral. you essentially have to do it i the right hand granma lane. that is the real danger. john: us consider how much ney you can save doing this. the average person's nancy
thousand $200 gasoline per year. you in our test saved 60 and a half percent. though the three ended $67 per year. did you come to like it. karzai am addicted. i started doing it in 2008. gas prices have really gone up. i've tried to find a way to not buy a hybri. i wanted to keep my feet. [applause] this washe only way to do it. john: but you're saving hundred of dollars. is it good for us? we debate that next. [applause] ♪
>> ramp up the availability of ethanol. >> politicians are telling us that ethanol will solve our problems. it sounds right. after all, the main ingredient is corn. corn is grown right here in america. we did things like this commercial. john: of want to be a hero. higroup promotes ethanol, thou it did n make that commercial. james taylor who added to the heartland institute of environmental climate newslette
is back to ay his argument is absurd. >> it is absurd that we will save money and make our coury beer through ethanol. right now ethanol is substantially more expensive than gasoline, has been. in order to get from a to b we have ted spend more money for fuel. that, of course, hurts the economy and reduces our standar of living. john: what do you mean a cost more? >> of the pump you're not seein the difference in the mileage. other words, for ethanol you have to multiply the price by one-half to get the true price comparison with gasoline becau it is not as concentrated cause the have to use more. john: bob. >> well, he is just wrong. $0.50 below the price of gasoline at the terminal, and i is saving consumers money. john: is a bit lower priced because taxpayers are throwing money you?
>> not all. ii fact, the ethanol industry receives no tax incentives will soever. the oil industry does. they get plenty of tax breaks. they get more than we do. the ethanol gets nothing. >> i love my friend, bob, but the fact of the matter is it at the ll was less expensive than gasoline, and others would not have to go to the government telling them, you must pass a law to make people buy our product. [applause] john: wire yo pay at the public trough. >> if there was anything like a free market in energytoday we would not need to. oil companies denied marketplac access to at all. they do not allow marketers to sell other blends. john: have a they have the powe to stop the? >>ranchise agreements. they absolutely control what is sold. they have control of the gasoline infrastructure, and th only thing that is broken in th
dynamic that has allowed at the mall to be used anywhere in thi country is the renewable fuel standard, a policy that says, you know what, there are important economic energy and i r mental benefits. we want to reduce our dependenc on imported oil. some refiners going t have to use some easure of ethanol. john: they locked him out. >> the at the top companies can set up their own distribution network and have their own franchise agreements. no one from the oil industry or anyone else is going to state legislatures, congress and sank pass a law locking them out and forcing people to file we have. john: second point, i was told is not oil is corn. it is cleaner for the air. >> it is, indeed. reducing the bacteria. carbon monoxide, toxics that ar in gasoline, and it is the only liquid transportation fuel that we have that will reduce greenhousegas emissions. is a great bargain for the
environment. >> if that is true why is almos every environmental group including the ones that support youurned against it. >> it is not really at the oliveira against. they do not like direction mariculture. those are different issues. %-recognize that ethanol is reducing carbon today. the fact of the matter is it is renewable. it is the only resource that we have today that is addressing that issue. john: ii is grown in america. isn't that goo for us? >> wireless grown in ameca as well. regardingthe assertion that is better for the environment, it is essentially neutral when compared to gasoline and we're talking missions, carbon. but what bob does not bring up is the fact that growing corn for ethanol is very land intensive. right now 60,000 square miles o land is developed for ethanol production. that isan amount of land equal to the state of hawaii and the
state of new jersey in the stat of delaware in the state of rhode island, the state of connecticut, the state of massachusetts. john: al of this land for ethanol that i could eat. so food costs more. someone is going to start. well you get all the goodies. >> in fact what is happening is farmers are becoming far more efficient, growing more on each acre of land. my graduate from high school we3 got another 84 bushels per acre. today we are getting 160 bushel per acre. so we don't have to expand in orders to give more of the know. john: food is not costmore? >> it sure doesn't. >> the ft of the matter is ethanol diverts more than 40 percent of the nation's corn crop away from food for humans, feed for cattle ranchers, poultry farmers. that has a negative impact on prices. -in the sense that we pay more as a result.
john: thank you. i say pay for your own ethanol and stop asking me for special deals. coming up, greedy oil companies. i say they actually do a wonderful thing for us. we should thank them. you've disagreed. but next, energy independence. how can thatt be good? one of my next guests says independence is meaningless. [alause] ♪
of mexico. >> do we help fund terrorism? >> it pumps money intf how i your financial surity. john we should become energy independt. we agree with that, but the cat institute says independence is nonsense. it would increase the price of the middle east. a commodity, energy independenc is not protect you against bad
stuff th happens abroad. >> there is no correlation. the gimmick of the day and find it. there's no correlation whatsoever. i would argue that if you denominate energy independence in terms of oil, if you want to change the game entirely in denominated and will we might call fuel choice. you had a segnt about ethanol.
yeah of the abundant source and turn it into ethanol which when available to the consumer as an option in addition to gasoline, in addition, perhaps, to ethano use only create conditions that actuly can destroy opec. there is a mosque that was in boston that was an incubator fo the attack the. th has its financing from saudi arabia. that makes a real difference. >> ielieve almost everythi that caters suggests. >> bad idea. john: stop throwing money to these madrasahs. >> they are here. >> if the united states did not send money to saudiarabia f crude, where we get about 10 percent of our crude. that's a we just got it from th north sea.
it would not matter much. we displace the customers and then buy from the saudis. the idea is that our actions somehow enrich them beyond what otherwise would be is to simply not true. >> unless you actually are usin another fuel in the mix. this is the point. youuys like consumers to have a s. this i know. sit-down. this requires the government saying we would like the consumer to have skills. this is an important point. what has happened here is thank to the mandate in brazil we hav seen of manufacturs as catcher making cars that can hughes alcohol based fuels.
they just don't market and the way in our country. >> they want as long as there are exclusivy configured to use gasoline. if and when you don't need to mandate it. >> is the cheapest fuel available. you're right about one thing. compressed natural gas,the problem as you understand that it would take hundreds of billions of dollars to invest i the infrastructure necessary to get from gas stations to delivery pipelines. the reason you don't make that is it is not car it can be profitable ten years from now. if you actually open the market my guess is you'll find the cos
of methanol dramatically declining in that is what the economists think. john: that has not been used on new of four. and i should answer the questio i asked for, is our crude oil come from? 43% from america, next is canada . in saudi arabia, mexicois fourth, venezuela. delirious to go back and listen to politicians promise energy independence. always about to happen. >> this intollrable excessive dependence. >> they promise. >> burning as closer to energy independence to ourcountry by 1980. >> 1985. >> and ten years. john: i don't know about ten years, but now we are told that pinkston fracking r natural gas it may happen. >> it could happen if we actually allowed toappen. help us get fuel choice an
exercise that option at the gas price. >> what kind of cars to build a maintenance to put in the cars. >> but i don't know in the future whether it will be most efficient, by valdez so, electric power. we'll know what the most efficient fuel will be we know that it will deliver if it make economic sense. but frank is talking about is the government forced transition . >> here is what i'm saying. since 2006 american automakers among others have been manufacturing cars to sell brazil. they have had to make them flexible fuel because governmen there has a mandate.
♪ [applause] john: we are back with your questionfor my gues. jerry taylor from the cato institute, james taylor, not th singer. >> i am the original. john: from the heartland. frank gaffney of the center for security policy. first from my facebook page. what a way to unshackle the energy so that it could be produced more efficiently. >> obviously you can open up federal lands for drilling wher they're currently not allowed, for instance the ctic national wildlife refuge in the gulf of mexico is a simple thing that w could do, but the reality is hydraulic fracturing giving as to additional million barrels per day which is a pretty big %-government interrence for the
most part, producing -- john: in new york is bay and. >> but most of the reserves right now in north dakota are producing flat out. private lands are producing a tremendous amount of crude. we are seeing another surge fro california. john: the audience. >> you heard the term because oil, and i am wondering if that is a myth. we are opposing the point. we are all going to freeze in the dark. >> most people don't appreciate only 35 percent of the crude-oi we have an upper -- reserves ever gets put into the market. and technology changes allows t be more economic. if we were to move from 35% extraction to 40 percent extraction, i would be like getting the most to saudi arabia's to the global food market. we will people are saying is we have hit a dead end and otechnology and will never innovate and find cheaper ways
to get some of the sons of the market. you know how dubious that proposition is. if current trend continues we will be a larger producer of crude oil and even the saudis b around 2020. >> did you mentioned a government mandate is in place now. wouldn't it make more sense if the solution was to try to you rid of the mandate we already have instead of piling a new on on t o it? >> it is not a government mandate. it is what has developed over the years. we developed an entire industry around using gasoline. people who sell it and people who drive their -- build their cars. we have a choice. the industry did choose a long time ago. it is t the government. w we have cell phones. we have an industry that focuse on one particular problem. it does not mean there and less as a practical matter the institutional interests say.
>> right now we have automobile fuel efficiency standards in th united states that tell other companies of fuel-efficient car have to be. that is forced. they get crit for beating the standard if ty produce vehicles. there are millions of cars on the road today that are not fle fuel. the reason, the only reason tha detroit makes this stuff is because they get regulatory preferences to build this stuff. >> is up slightly not true. >> the number of cars in the united states that are marketed as flex fuel vehicles does follow th pattern. john: i cannot even fall you guys. [laughter] >> they're making a brazil. john: stop. >> yes, ssr. >> today we don't have a truly free market for anything. if we had a truly free market for energy how would that chann the energy we use. and what a lot of the alternative energy be used, eve feasible unnaturally free-market . >> that is a great question.
first of all, energy would be cheaper. how would that shape the market? that is a fantastic question because that gets to the heart of the issue which is, i cannot determine, some government bureaucrat cannot determine, even the best energy economic expert in the world cannot tell us what will be 20 or 30 years from now the most efficient, economicalenergy source. that is why governments to allo the free market to work and therefore entrepreneurs will bring to market those products and technologies that work best. >> you say you want the government to create a mandate to give us more choice in the maet, but we already have a choice. we can choose to buy or not to buy products. are you really i saying you don't like the choices we have made? >> i know think so. what i am saying is you could have much more choice. we are talking about why the prices are so high. it is that our government controlling the prices. it is the saudi government. when they decide that we are producing too much and it is going to reduce their profit,
they drive down the amount of that opec supplies. that is so we can do it we hhve to. >> the fact that they make decisions about how much crude oil to produce is a fact of lif like the fact that the sun rise in the morning. there's nothing we can do about it. the best that we can do is provide for an efficient marketplace that allows for the right amount -- the right marke response. in the government tries to respond jimmy carter wanted to see better fuels. george bush, the second george bush wanted freedom cars run by fuel cells. you don't hear that being discussed today. we heard promises of methanol being cheaper than gasoline in the 70's, and it is still a dollar a gallon more expensive in the latest version is methanol. if and when this is competitive believe me, people want to and will make tons of money john: on that note, thank you. coming up, what i say every tim we get to the gas station we
ought to think of oil companies. ♪ my mother made the best toffee in the world. it's delicious. so now we've turned her toffee into a business. my goal was to take an idea and make it happen. i'm janet long and i formed my toffee company through legalzoom. never really thought i would make money doing what i lo. [ robert ] we created legalzoom to help ople start their business and launch their dreams. go to legalzoom.com today and make your business dream a reality.
>> i feel like it is safer to put in more premium gas. john: it is not safer or better. the few cars with high compression engines like tories and corvettes need -- need higher octane, but for 90 percent of the cars it is no better. it just waste your money. now, the men's wear most of you probably don't figure with me, most everyone says gas costs to much. >> today was over $4. that is ridiculous. much too much. >> wait too much. >> how low is the american public supposed to afford. john: and here we keep close track of gas prices. >> the 16th straight day. john: the most popular anchor tells me. >> zero companies are by your friend. we are getting hosed at the pump . john: those? of many of you agree with ll o'reilly? a few of you. all right. this is a "stossel" audience. the majority of your right. we would be looking to get an
equal hosing when we pay for health care or college tuition because gas is cheap. we should think those companies. think what they do to bring us gallon of gas, such debt of the ground sometime from moral to the war zones are deep beneath the notion. drills now been then dig sideways through as much as 7 miles of earth. what they find is then delivere through long billion-$ pipeline and put in monstrously -- monstrously expensive tankers to ship across the ocean and then refined into several types of gasoline, transported and trucks that cos and is a thousand dollars until finally it gets here to your gas station. and even after all that the gasoline per ounce still costs less than the ball rather that they sell at those gas stations. government produced gas it woul cost $50 pe gallon, and there
would be shortages. people complain about oil company profits. we should be glad that they mak lots of money. profit is what gets them to fin more oil so that we have supplies tomrow. and just how much profit to the make? well, apple's profit margin is about 24%. mcdonald's, about 20%. exxon mobile, the biggest oil company, a 11%. how much profit is that per gallon of the pump? people think it is a dollar or two, but exxon clears about $0 per gallon. governments, by contrast, gabba -- grab an average $0.27, the average gas tax. if anyone is greedy it is government. oil companies cannot be too greedy because they have competition. that is our show. we will have another new "stossel" show next thursday nanette 9:00 p.m. on that fox business network. thank you for watching. ♪ them up the same
way ♪ you think this irs scandal is the biggest threat to the alth care law? maybe not. guess who is against it now, unions. some of the same ones who helped the president push it. eir gripes? the rising cost of health benefits. is this the proof that it's finally timeto let the law flat line. hi everybody. i'm brenda buttner. >> weave all our guests. welcome to everybody. john, did the unions have it right this time? >> yeah. they finally have it right. i'm not sure how they didn't have it right before. thiis